Any else shoot the 70-200/2.8 on FX?`

[Chris_PA]

I'm pretty disappointed with mine on the FX sensor

The vignette is crazy (I need +60 points in LR to fix it)
That doesn't really bother me too much, but it's still a nuisance

My main complaint is the soft corners/edges of the frame
They are significantly worse than the center (which is very sharp)
I do a lot of portrait work and I am afraid to put my subject off center for fear of them going soft

Here's a good read on what I am experiencing (mine is just about as bad as the examples)
http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/fre...0VR/index.html

I'm considering returning it and getting the 200/2 like I should have in the first place


Anyone else have these problems?

[i like rice]

You probably won't get much feedback on this forum since there are only 1-2 people using a Nikon FF body.

[97TurboDSM]

wow, the examples in that review are ROUGH. i vote dump it an get the 200/2

[cszakolczai]

I've seen the 70-200 on a D3 shooting a hockey game at 2000 ISO through the glass...
take a look, pictures are crystal clear.

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/sho...d.php?t=198810

[RichK]

I use my 70-200 on my D3 all the time. I've never noticed the edges being soft or blurry. Maybe you have a bad copy? If you live close to me, you are more than welcome to give mine a try.

[97TurboDSM]

those hockey shots are awesome.

[cszakolczai]

^ yeah the dudes pretty sick, I think he's from Germany? Anyways he's dead nasty at hockey shooting and scary part is, those shots were all through the glass.

[S4toSTI]

My 80-200 is fine on the d700 but then again that lens has been around since the beginning of time none of this new 70-200 crap haha.

[sisforsurfing]

Bump/dead thread hijack.

Chris, you've had more luck with the 70-200 recently right? I'm buying something in this range soon and can't decide on what. I like the old 80-200 AF-S a lot but they go for almost as much as used 70-200, and I like VR.

Barry, what's the 80-200 AF-D like focusing with the D700 AF motor? I used the old push/pull version and it's brutally slow. And have you used it with converters?

I can't decide between biting the bullet on the 70-200 + converters, 80-200 AF-S + converters, Sigma 100-300/4 and Sigma 120-300mm/2.8 ($$$). Or just get the 70-300 AF-S someone wants to trade + cash for one of my DX lenses and stop being such a pretentious bitch.
I even used a 180/2.8 today with a 2x converter and it held up really well considering, it's just too slow to AF and I don't want a prime (so no 300/4 AF-S).

Advice?

[S4toSTI]

Well i can only use it with my 1.4 kenko cause the 2x only works on af-s. BUt the focus is pretty nice on the af-d it is no afs but it is not too bad.

[cszakolczai]

I use the 70-200VR on FX and its amazing, I get sliiiiiight vignetting in the corner, it might just be the fact I shoot throught the glass at hockey games, or someone getting in the way at times because its not there all the time. I don't know, its not enough for me to complain about. The 70-200 is the way to go from personal experience. The VR has saved my ass when I shot a wedding and I had to knock down the shutter speed wayyyy low because it was practically black in the room and I could only use 1 flash because I wasn't the main photographer, just a guest. Here is an example from tonights flyers game with the 70-200VR shot through the glass with my cheap hoya UV filter, non of that fancy pro-1 digital stuff for me.

[sisforsurfing]

Thanks guys. That vignetting doesn't look any worse than my FX primes wide open, and lots of people love it on FX. I wish they would come out with an updated version so the used price went down more, haha.

I like the 70-200 because I can hold it all day without a monopod, but that Sigma 120-300 is pretty awesome and I like the idea of a 420/4 with a converter for surfing. They're the same price used, just a matter of finding a good copy.